N1120A
Pattern Altitude
A Grumman Tiger does everything a DA40 does, but better.
What plane should I buy?
- Thread starter golfmogul
- Start date
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
Thanks for the compliment, we got a trainer recently! Also, I like to be festooned in luxury.. pilots are "rich" after all, right?!
It's like getting excited about accounting.. which some people do. But flying should also be romantic and exhilarating. I've talked to people who lean their Moonies way the hell out and fly barely at 65% power just to marvel at their gph/speed.
Yes. This is the biggest issue with the used market, and why for "new" planes you're stuck spending tons of money, or looking hard. For what it's worth, I think the Diamond is a great choice. The DA62 is one of my dream planes, but the TBM and Aerostar still top it. You know that Diamond planes are incredibly strong, right? If you go to their site they talk about this. They have photos of the DA62 wing testing with it in a frame and the wings bent way up (but not breaking). Good choice!!
Eye of the beholder.. the cockpit of this plane is VERY clean https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...AA5B+TIGER&listing_id=2385059&s-type=aircraft.. but, it's still no match for something that was designed not 50 years ago and has a G1000 and modern amenities.
Some day when Tantalum hits it big I'll be the Jay Leno of planes and can house all these planes in a hangar at Burbank or something lol
Them there's fightin' words...
N1120A
Pattern Altitude
Not really. The ergonomics of the DA40 cabin aren't as good as the Tiger, the performance isn't as good and my 1969 Bonanza has better avionics than a G1000
Juliet Hotel
En-Route
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2018
- Messages
- 2,634
- Display Name
Display name:
Juliet Hotel
If they're that worried about it, probably better for all involved if you leave them on the ground.
Lol - Tantalum nailed it with his entire comment. He gets it. That Tiger does have a clean looking cockpit in the pics ... but if you click on the other pics, the rest of the cabin and 1950's body and paint is fugly as f lol. Clearly N1120A is a tiger fan boy, and I'm sure its a great plane for him. But I'd rather spend $200k and have something that looks 100x nicer imo (and in most non-pilot's opinions ... seriously ya'll,... I'm not even there yet to where I'll be taking my kids or other's flying with me ... but I can't even imagine the conversations many pilots must be having every time they take someone new flying with them to try to convince ppl that their 1950's looking plane is safe.). I'm sure there are things the Tiger (insert almost any other plane here ... Mooney, Cirrus ... etc) can do better than the DA40, but from everything I've learned, the DA40 is a GREAT step up from my PA 28 140 and will be faster but not too fast, easy to handle, very difficult to upset, great to learn IFR and begin doing XC flights in, and great to start taking my kids places in. For me, its a 2-3 year plane, then, assuming my skills and finances continue to keep pace, sell it and get something with more speed (ideally an RV-10).
NordicDave
En-Route
Be sure to rent one before buying, especially in the Summer. They are terrific planes and very fun to fly. The earlier year models have very stiff seats and can be very uncomfortable for some. Insurance is significantly higher over an all aluminum plane of same hull value due to the costs of repairing composites. Their long wingspan also won’t fit in many standard Tee hangars.
The pluses are high as well like visibility, fuel consumption & engine maintenance since it has speed like a 6 cylinder plane with a 4 cylinder engine. The stick is a love/hate situation. Fantastic if you like sticks, but always a bit awkward for the passenger.
If you’re looking at a G1000 version, there is a big price jump for the GFC700 autopilot version with WAAS GPS for good reason.
Canopy condition is very important as replacement cost is unpleasant. Later versions have a larger canopy for better headroom.
Spend some quality time on DAN https://www.diamondaviators.net/ reading and asking questions.
I liked the DA40 for how nimble if flies, visibility, fuel economy, ergonomics. I have a bias for buying aircraft still in production for access to parts, or a factory commitment like Socata to keep makings parts for aircraft it’s no longer sells.
Last edited:
N1120A
Pattern Altitude
The Tiger definitely doesn't have a 1950s body, and looking like a glider isn't exactly awe inspiring. Tantalum would like all our planes to have Rotax engines too, because of his love of all things "new."
I care about flying dynamics and performance. Having plenty of time in DA40s, and then owning a Tiger (and a Bonanza), I can say what gives a better experience.
Entry and exit? Tiger with canopy
Ergonomics? Tiger, and it's not close
Ground on a hot day? Tiger with canopy
Takeoff? Tiger
Climb? Tiger
Cruise? Wash
Fuel? Wash, unless the DA40 is diesel, then DA40
Handling? Lol, this isn't close. Tiger.
Turbulence? Another one that isn't close. Tiger.
For $200K, I'm buying an A36 or an Ovation.
Cervieres
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2020
- Messages
- 285
- Display Name
Display name:
Antione
Good choice.
Ravioli
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2014
- Messages
- 8,021
- Location
- Somewhere else
- Display Name
Display name:
Unwanted Guest - Perma-ban Pending
DA40 is a dog when the density altitude is high, and not even great at sea level. The canopy is great for viewing, but again, hot equals bad.
But they are nice and shiny new-ish things to go 125kts in with very good fuel figures.
But they are nice and shiny new-ish things to go 125kts in with very good fuel figures.
Cervieres
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2020
- Messages
- 285
- Display Name
Display name:
Antione
Sheesh, really? I can barely get my DA40 out of the hanger in the morning without strangers complimenting the looks of the airplane and the cabin layout. And give Textron a call and let them know the secret to reviving Bonanza sales is losing the G1000 and reverting back to the 1969 panel with a bunch of pieced together aftermarket add-ons.
Cervieres
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2020
- Messages
- 285
- Display Name
Display name:
Antione
Nope. This is 100 pounds below gross, typical East Coast summer day. For the majority of the continental US, performance is just fine.
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N821T
Juliet Hotel
En-Route
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2018
- Messages
- 2,634
- Display Name
Display name:
Juliet Hotel
Lots of planes can take off in the flat lands and get up to 12k just fine. That doesn't mean they'll all be good choices for loading up and flying from mountain destinations.
N1120A
Pattern Altitude
G3x >>>>> G1000 aka the overgrown 430
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
..and this is where things get personal because everyone thinks the baby they own is the best plane ever.. whether it's a brand new Cirrus or 60 year old Mooney or somewhere in between
The G3X is very nice (so is the G2000 and the G3000), but unfortunately, for many 50+ year old planes these panel upgrades also result in a hodge podge cockpit and again a host of weird squawks and "issues" that takes time and money and annoyance to figure out, like CHT/EGT/fuel flow figures that don't read right.. autopilots that sometimes kick out, etc. Everyone I know who's jazzed up their panel is plagued by months of stuff that doesn't quite work right.. issues you won't find in a factory new equipped G1000 plane
New is not bad.. and planes aren't all about a raw algorithm of performance. Many people will gladly go slower to have more load carrying ability and or comfort (hence the 182's success, even though it's probably one of the worst flying planes to have every been built and is a slow fuel guzzling beast)
Plus, it's all horses for courses. For the OP's *current* mission the DA40 makes perfect sense.
What's wrong with new? Yes, I don't want to sit in something with thousands of hours of dubious fatigue, a host of odd squawks, and beat to death seats that stop at shoulder height and have decades of sweat and farts soaked into them. Nevermind most of these old planes have little more than a crappy lap belt. Our engines are an absolute disgrace.. with just about everyone having some constant issues that require figuring out.. "gee I think the timing is off" or "hmm, why does cylinder 3 always run hot" to "my mechanic said X.. and the engine vibrates at 2,200 RPM, is that normal?" - plus there are nearly daily engine outs. While many are user error (carb ice, fuel exhaustion) many also are not. I for one would love to through the current crop of Lycos/Conti straight in the trash and fly behind something new
The G3X is very nice (so is the G2000 and the G3000), but unfortunately, for many 50+ year old planes these panel upgrades also result in a hodge podge cockpit and again a host of weird squawks and "issues" that takes time and money and annoyance to figure out, like CHT/EGT/fuel flow figures that don't read right.. autopilots that sometimes kick out, etc. Everyone I know who's jazzed up their panel is plagued by months of stuff that doesn't quite work right.. issues you won't find in a factory new equipped G1000 plane
New is not bad.. and planes aren't all about a raw algorithm of performance. Many people will gladly go slower to have more load carrying ability and or comfort (hence the 182's success, even though it's probably one of the worst flying planes to have every been built and is a slow fuel guzzling beast)
Plus, it's all horses for courses. For the OP's *current* mission the DA40 makes perfect sense.
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
What? Straw men abound. I said the exact opposite. Flying is not all about raw algorithmic approach objective performance stats. Some people actually like to fly something that is comfortable and feels nice or be useful off field, useful load, etc. There's also simple "but this one looks cooler" opinionsIt's settled then. @Tantalum hates physics.
Otherwise I'm assuming everyone here drives lightly used Toyota Corolla's and/or Prius
PS - if you are referring to my comment about the ancient technology in our engines, I've been over this dozens of times here.. asking a 9 liter engine to offer ~300 HP and run at one power setting for 2K hours at a low rpm setting is absolutely nowhere near the apex of what physics can afford us. Maybe it's what the low volume, high regulation, and associated costs allow for, but that doesn't mean we have to be satisfied with it or not desire something better
Everything that you want requires weight. Weight requires compromises. Was it this thread or another where @N1120A called the PA32 slow? Sure, 155 knots at 15gph ain't ideal, but I can haul lots of stuff (with cup holders) for 180mph. Do I have an ancient Lycoming IO-540? Yup. If you want something modern, if you want car engines, you need to go liquid cooled, right? Weight. You want air conditioning? Weight. So to carry the weight, you need a draggy airframe. So now you can't do the 200 knots that everyone covets at 4 gph (yes I am being dramatic).
Don't get me wrong, I like where your head is at. The comfort and modern technology of cars isn't coming. Cars can add weight without penalty. Cars can add technology that shuts off whenever it wants. Cars don't fly through clouds. Cars don't have turbulence to deal with. Cars don't have spars. Cars don't run the limits of their ability (most/many cars can go what.....140mph but average a speed of 40mph in their lifetime) while airplane engines are running at nearly top rpm all the time.
I am just babbling. We are where we are and nothing is going to change that. I don't like the fact that I fly a plane a year older than me. Oh well. I also don't like the fact that my power supply for my strobes is going flaky and a stupid box to flash two bulbs costs $810 to replace. But we are where we are.
Still friends? Er, acquaintances?
NordicDave
En-Route
The OP’s original question “what plane should I buy“. After all the discussion and analysis, only one answer stands alone as the right choice…
A Raptor!
A Raptor!
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
Unfortunately we all fly behind an ancient Lyco (or Conti).. even the guys spending close to $1M for a new Baron/Bonanza/Stationaire/Cirrus/Mooney all sit behind the same engine. I think part of the reason that GA is dying is that many people associate GA with the stereotypical flight school Cessna and picture a slow, old, piston prop plane. Then they go for a discovery flight, or up with a friend, and see that this indeed the case.. they're paying $120/hr+ to sit in something that was built in 1969 (and looks it) to go slow.. the plastic paneling is all cracked, the "modern" avionics are a hodgepodge mess, the headliner is peeling, and the plane creaks and rattles when it taxies.
Back in the 1970s there wasn't a big dichotomy between cars and planes.. your 1974 Dodge Dart was basically commensurate with what you'd get in a Cardinal, for example. But while the rest of the world advanced, planes did not.
Along comes Diamond and Cirrus and the EA world, and surprise, these planes (for the most part) sell really well.. while the others don't. And then you have people absolutely trashing Diamonds and Cirrus for some reason. These guys found a way to offer a very comfortable FIKI/AC fast plane with roughly 1,000 lbs useful. It's very fast overall and doesn't have gear complexity. They're good planes.. yet people hate them.
Innovation doesn't happen overnight, it comes along incrementally. Does Rotax build a 180 hp engine.. NO. But do they build a solid FADEC engine and continually size up their powerplants and make incremental improvements.. yes! There was some study out there that showed the ROTAX engines are not any more unreliable then Lyco/Conti.. which, since these are all going in homebuilt planes, is a surprising stat. How many Tecnams have crashed due to engine failures?
It's just exhausting hearing people complain about how GA is dying and at the same time alleging that planes designed in the 1940s-1960s are somehow the apex of what we can ever have
Yes.. still friends, er acquaintances..
PS - I had (still do?) have a thing for the Lance.. would be a cool plane to own. There's nothing wrong with 150 knots and that cabin is HUGE. I'd much rather sit in a 1970s Lance doing 150-170 knots than a 1970s Bonanza doing similar speed. The Bonanza may look slightly more attractive on the ramp and fly a little nicer, but it's not a particularly comfortable cabin. For a "big plane" it's awfully narrow, there's a big dumb bar in the middle of the cockpit blocking the switches and instruments, and with one door I really don't find it any more comfortable than a Cherokee. The later models with 6 seats and 2 doors leave you with an unusable rear seat for both size and weight reasons. The older PA32 you can actually properly load up
Why the Bo is so popular I will never understand. It looks pretty and flies nice, but that's honestly about it. I hate high wings but the 210 beats the Bonanza in just about every possible category.
Last edited:
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
I understand this comment is in jest, and the person building it has lost their marbles.. but the Raptor stopped taking deposits at 1,500. Does Textron have 1,500 deposits for planes? The Raptor might be mostly vaporware, but it does show that people out there do have money, and are interested in aviation. They want something new, comfortable, and capable. Even if the Raptor ends up cruising at 140 knots* I bet you'd still have an interested base
*this makes the wildly speculative claim that the plane "gets off the ground" and actually becomes a viable EA contender.
NordicDave
En-Route
I agree. People and companies are trying the break the envelope of what's available and possible.
The Piperstrel Panthera is another example of the type of barriers Peter trying to break with the Raptor design. The Panthera is also missing it's lofty design goals, however it is being developed on a more sound engineering basis.
https://www.pipistrel-aircraft.com/aircraft/cruising/panthera/
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
I've been following this plane closely, I'm really rooting for these guys! A while back they posted their spin video, from what the video at least showed it look like a very easy to fly and stable platform
agreed ... for 2-3 days now I've been on a Mooney kick ... but I'm wondering instead if I shouldn't keep my pa 28 140 for a bit & hire some amateur (not technically commercial, but skilled amateur) help & build an RV-10 within 2 years using a QB kit - that's the plane I REALLY want.
Ravioli
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2014
- Messages
- 8,021
- Location
- Somewhere else
- Display Name
Display name:
Unwanted Guest - Perma-ban Pending
I won't bother explaining the pratfalls of playing the "helper" game. But, you can find a flying RV-10 at around the same cost of a Diamond.
I'll research the 'helper' option & obv wouldn't go down that road if it isn't legal or legit to classify as home built, for education etc - amateur built - etc. I've looked for RV 10's to buy - nothing on trade a plane or controller now (2 listings, one is sold, the other is in S. Africa). Two sold recently that were listed around $260-$270k. None are likely to come up for sale anytime soon that would fit into my new budget (received yesterday from my lender) of $150k-$185k. But over the next two years, a build of an RV 10 (w/help) would fit - just need to find out how to do it legally. If the Synergy Air types of builder-assist programs have found a way to make it work for so many who go that route, and they ARE commercial help, then I'm confident there are similar ways out of my own garage with amateur help for educational purposes that would work, but I'll keep digging. Maybe I'm dreaming & need to just buy an expensive Mooney J or a less expensive Ovation (R).